The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

You've literally just written the equivalent of the following sentence.

"You can't read my mind, and I can't read yours, but I've chosen to take offence to something you've said and that means you're being aggressive regardless of your actual intentions."

You're one step away from a 1984 Party slogan.



As someone with Asperger's, let me assure you that I have plenty of experience of people falsely interpreting my intentions. Your assertion that I am at fault for the flawed reasoning of others regarding my mindset is far worse an insult than any imagined slight on the part of such a person. For you to presume to tell me how I "should" behave in a social setting, armed with the knowledge that I frequent a forum where the majority of users are on the spectrum, is stunningly ignorant.



It's a quintessential aspect of being a social primate with language capability - in other words, it's the very essence of our humanity. Castigation of human curiosity is, therefore, dehumanisation.



Indeed they do. And the reasonable assumption is that, in the majority of cases, they're doing so out of genuine curiosity. Knowing that yet assuming they're making an exception for you is the height of egocentricity.



If you're not willing to apply that both ways, why should anyone else?

Before we continue with this, please state your intentions, as I do not understand the purpose of you saying I have said things that I have not, and I would like to understand how you arrived at such claims.

For example, you said


And no where in this thread have I asserted such a thing.

Have you had some past experiences that have lead you to such conclusions?

My "intention" is to point out the logical inconsistency, as well as the hypocrisy inherent in your post. Having just re-read my own post, I believe it's fair to say that I made that perfectly clear.

For the sake of clarity, however, we'll re-examine your second paragraph from the post in question:

"Additionally, if someone takes offense to being asked where they are from because they think the other person is implying they are a foreigner and somehow that is a bad thing, you should ask what experiences the person might have had in the past to lead them to come to that conclusion."

This is a de facto imperative, instructing the asker of the question that they are the responsible party, that their perception is flawed rather than the party who is unjustifiably taking offence. You are placing fault with the person who has been incorrectly interpreted, so yes, you did indeed "[assert] such a thing". You might even consider it "victim-blaming".

The irony here is that this is precisely what you've done when you claim that I am putting words in your mouth. There was no strawman here. I am not responsible for your inability to understand either my motivation or my meaning.



And you've transgressed further with this insidious query. I was directly addressing your words within this thread, wherein lies the scope of this conversation.

I wish people wouldn't adopt a default defensive posture all the time

I've lived in this world over half a century. I've come to the conclusion that most people really don't have the time to try to screw someone else, unless they have a real chip on their shoulder

People tend to live in self-contained worlds--existing, most of the time, within limited social circles and limited geographical scope. This often leads to a certain amount of boredom and the feeling of ennui.

Amid all this, people tend to enjoy what they see as being exotic (perhaps there is ambivalence borne out of a fear of the Unknown). Hence, they become curious. Exotic things add flavor to their lives.

That's usually why somebody will ask "Where are you from?" Most people aren't immigration authorities or certain types of cops.

Here's an example that I believe can be called a "micro-aggression." A Hispanic woman and a white women were talking about whether or not undocumented immigrants should be able to get driver's licenses. Whatever side you take is another discussion. Anyway the relevant part of the conversation went along the lines of:

Hispanic women: "I believe undocumented immigrants should be able to get licenses."

White woman: "But how would you like it if someone came to your country illegally and started taking advantage of government services?"

Hispanic woman: "This is my country."

The issue is that the white woman just automatically assumed that she was from Mexico. Yeah it's a small thing but that's why they use the term "micro."

Just because there are people who don't quite get it and take things much too far doesn't mean the idea doesn't exist. These terms are mostly for academic conversations anyway. It's kind of just observing the many facets of racism and bigotry and how far it can reach and how ingrained it can be in a society.

But she didn't get nasty about it. She just stated "this is my country." She was educating the other person, exposing the other person's assumptions. And she was allowing the person to learn. Getting nasty precludes education, and perpetuates ignorance.

I think people are misunderstanding the "where are you from?" question.

There's a second part that seems to be missing. It's usually:

"where are you from?"

Hispanic person: "I'm from Chicago."

Other person: "no, I mean what country?"

It's basically an inarticulate way of asking what the person's heritage is. Now it's fine to debate whether that is an example of racism or not or an example of a "micro-aggression." I'm not taking a position on that here I just wanted to clarify that.

If I became curious about where a person "came from," I'd probably try to hazard a guess. Such as: "Are you from Trinidad and Tobago?" if a person has a Trini-type accent.

I'd make it a guessing game, adding to the adventure.

No she didn't and most people don't over things like that. That's what's been bothering me a little about this discussion. The examples that have been given here are things that pretty much never happen. People don't usually fly off the handle just because someone asked where their from. People here are being purposefully hyperbolic to get their point across and I think that is a deterrent to an effective conversation. I think those terms like "micro-aggression" are more for academic purposes anyways like showing how people can have hidden biases.

People should think about "micro-good deeds," in addition to "microagressions."

But I do understand that I have to be sensitive about it....and try not to ask that question directly.

Like I said, I do the "guessing game."

The thread is about SJWs rather than "most people". Terms like "microaggression" and "hidden biases" are being used as political bludgeons by a societal group who follow a flawed and dangerous political ideology in the mistaken belief that they're doing something noble. The notion of Joe Average using such language in everyday conversation is (hopefully) understood to be ridiculous.



Hyperbolic rhetoric is demonstrably an effective method of discourse. Of more concern should be the tendency of some people to tergiversate or engage disingenuously.



Actually, it was me who raised that particular example, and I can assure you that there was no misunderstanding. This was a real life example of a policy being enacted by a university in the US.

Asking the question "where are you from?" or "where were you born?" was deemed to be unacceptable by Janet Napolitano, President of University of California, who presented a list of such phrases to her faculty and instructed them against their use.

Other banned phrases included "America is the land of opportunity" and "The most qualified person should get the job".

LOL...but the most qualified person SHOULD get the job.

It's an open question whether "America is the land of opportunity."

But I find America to have more "opportunity" than most countries of the world.

The term SJW is a political bludgeon used by alt-right cretins to undermine any form of liberalism or social justice movement by associating them with a fringe element of ineffectual and selfish internet activists, which is what the term originally meant. Hidden or Unconscious bias is a real thing that police forces train to counteract.

Like I said before, just because some people don't understand these ideas correctly and take things too far doesn't mean the concepts are invalid. I think the point of these terms were primarily to describe a phenomena in sociology. I think those kinds of terms can be useful in those kinds of discussions.

The part that of this conversation I was trying to address is that these ideas shouldn't be totally dismissed because of some ignorant people. I'm not addressing you personally I just tend to see that happen when these kinds of conversations happen.

As I pointed out, such people are the topic of discussion in this thread. Whether or not such concepts are valid in a general sense is a different subject altogether.



But nobody here is encountering them in an academic sociological context. They're being re-purposed and deployed as weapons in political rhetoric. The issue isn't whether the average person in the street is misusing ideas, it's whether there's an unhealthy blurring of the lines between politics and sociological ideas that are neither empirical nor desirable.



The ideas that are being dismissed are very specifically those ideas which are based on misapplication. If you want to discuss the sociological ideas which inform such misapplications in isolation to them, my suggestion would be to do so in a new thread.



It's entirely possible that you're simply unaware of the nuance of the conversations in question. As I think I've demonstrated, the discussion you're interested in is not the one that's being held here. I don't think that gives you sufficient cause to weigh-in with a complaint that the tone or style of other participants is ineffective without justification. Indeed, I find such baseless criticism to be wholly unproductive, especially when applied generally to an entire thread of 18 pages.



The term cretins is a political bludgeon used by politically ignorant partisans to dehumanise their opponents rather than address their actual opinions or policies.

Or, put another way, I don't care what flag you wave, nor is it of interest to me who you choose to lump into your out-group nor the labels you apply to such. Nor do I care for how you choose to represent either them or their opinions.

I will, however, make one small consideration to your post, if only to point out that SJW was being used as a pejorative at least a decade prior to the rise of those calling themselves "alt-right". Whether or not they've contributed meaningfully to the expansion of said usage is up for debate.



This in no way alters the fact that such terms are being weaponised by SJWs. If this was intended as a rebuttal, you've missed the mark by quite some distance.